Author
Topic: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1] (Read 65406 times)

While I agree a hobbyist will be unlikely to pay $2,700 for a crop cam, I doubt if it will be priced at $2,700 or it will be priced out of the market. I do think the 7DII will be better in IQ ... A stop maybe and will be an improvement with better AF and other features (WIFI, GPS)over the 7D as it stands.

No problem here J.R. I certainly agree, the 7D2 will be a vast improvement over the 7D. Because it has to be. If it actually is a "pro" body, and costs in the low $2k range, and has all the other features people seem to want, it will absolutely murder the Sony/Nikon and other crop format competition...no doubt about that. That gets back to my other point...especially regarding the "pro" body aspect. There will be a lot of unhappy 5D3 owners who shoot birds, sports, etc...in good light...especially if they have a series 2 great white. Because their body will no longer be the cool kid on the block.

“I don't think physics has anything to do with the inferiority of EF-S lenses. Optics are optics...it doesn't matter what kind of mount you use. If the optics resolve an extremely sharp image at the focus plane, you could slap on any mount you want, it doesn't matter.”

Well, that’s what you think. It matters huge at the wide angle end, and you know it does. The 10-22 is not an f/2.8 lens. So a narrower aperture coupled to a smaller sensor with higher noise floor, will achieve inferior results to full frame on a good quality f/2.8 wide angle lens (for wide angle astrophotography, night imaging, etc.) The 10-22 Canon EF-S, is also very low quality…you just happened to either not look at your images at even 50%, or else you had an unnaturally good copy…or else you’re way off base. Have a look at what the rental houses say about the 10-22. The 10-22 is inherently soft in the outer 40% of the image, even closed to f/8. It’s worthless crap. Please post proof otherwise, if you have it, and it needs to be fairly ironclad, with full exif…say a shot done at less than 15mm, at f/8 or f/7.1…preferably RAW. Notice I'm throwing you a bone and allowing for the handicapped sharpness. I would ask for an f/3.5 image done at 10mm, but that would be a total waste of time. It's also f/3.5 in a crop sensor vs f/2.8 on a full frame...

Honestly Jrista, or whatever your name is...you're so hyper enthusiastic about the series 2 great white superteles...that for you to even mention the Canon EF-S 10-22, is not only laughable, but it also chips away at your credibility regarding your wonderboy opinions about lens performance and the like.

“APS-C is not inherently "cheap", in terms of quality.”

That’s not what I said, and again, you know that’s not what I said. You’re implying I’m saying the format itself, especially a camera body in the format…is inherently “cheap.” I don’t think it is inherently “cheap”, nor did I say it was. I was referring to most EF-S lenses, as can clearly be seen if you read what I said again, in context…rather than attempt to dissect it out of context. You seem to have a lot of time to do that. I suggest you go out and shoot more pictures, as I have been doing.

“Reach is everything for a number of fields of photography, and in that respect, APS-C offers significant value.”

And in the same sense, even smaller sensored cameras can offer even more value, such as the SX50. But the SX50 doesn’t cost over $2k for the body, plus the $7k to $10k cost of a supertele. “Value” is very highly subjective here. What one person thinks of as high value, someone else with slightly different needs, might see as not a value at all. Buying a series 2 great white, will always be the dominant part of the equation. The “value” of a camera body, factors in very little, unless it is at or close to the level of the 1DX…or unless you have or need 3 or 4 camera bodies in the arsenal. So if maximum reach with a given lens is all you value, then yes, bodies like the future 7D2 could be seen as representing "good value". Just remember that the "good value" here, is because you can use a single supertele lens with two different bodies to achieve two "effective" focal lengths. That's the only "value". You can achieve BETTER value by simply using two different teleconverters, because then you have 3 possible "effective" focal lengths, rather than two...all for under $1k over the cost of the lens alone...as opposed to ~ $2k+ for buying the top class APS-C body.

“That said...I'll also happily pay for a 5D III AS WELL. I can use both cameras...I do stuff at range, as well as stuff close up (such as macro, which can benefit from larger pixels), as well as landscapes and astrophotography. The only question is which one I'll buy first, not which one is better than the other.”

I’m happy that you can inform us all, as to what the “only question is”. You are overqualified there, a happy coincidence for you. It’s getting tiresome from here. Good day.

“I don't think physics has anything to do with the inferiority of EF-S lenses. Optics are optics...it doesn't matter what kind of mount you use. If the optics resolve an extremely sharp image at the focus plane, you could slap on any mount you want, it doesn't matter.”

Well, that’s what you think. It matters huge at the wide angle end, and you know it does. The 10-22 is not an f/2.8 lens. So a narrower aperture coupled to a smaller sensor with higher noise floor, will achieve inferior results to full frame on a good quality f/2.8 wide angle lens (for wide angle astrophotography, night imaging, etc.) The 10-22 Canon EF-S, is also very low quality…you just happened to either not look at your images at even 50%, or else you had an unnaturally good copy…or else you’re way off base. Have a look at what the rental houses say about the 10-22. The 10-22 is inherently soft in the outer 40% of the image, even closed to f/8. It’s worthless crap. Please post proof otherwise, if you have it, and it needs to be fairly ironclad, with full exif…say a shot done at less than 15mm, at f/8 or f/7.1…preferably RAW. Notice I'm throwing you a bone and allowing for the handicapped sharpness. I would ask for an f/3.5 image done at 10mm, but that would be a total waste of time. It's also f/3.5 in a crop sensor vs f/2.8 on a full frame...

Honestly Jrista, or whatever your name is...you're so hyper enthusiastic about the series 2 great white superteles...that for you to even mention the Canon EF-S 10-22, is not only laughable, but it also chips away at your credibility regarding your wonderboy opinions about lens performance and the like.

“APS-C is not inherently "cheap", in terms of quality.”

That’s not what I said, and again, you know that’s not what I said. You’re implying I’m saying the format itself, especially a camera body in the format…is inherently “cheap.” I don’t think it is inherently “cheap”, nor did I say it was. I was referring to most EF-S lenses, as can clearly be seen if you read what I said again, in context…rather than attempt to dissect it out of context. You seem to have a lot of time to do that. I suggest you go out and shoot more pictures, as I have been doing.

“Reach is everything for a number of fields of photography, and in that respect, APS-C offers significant value.”

And in the same sense, even smaller sensored cameras can offer even more value, such as the SX50. But the SX50 doesn’t cost over $2k for the body, plus the $7k to $10k cost of a supertele. “Value” is very highly subjective here. What one person thinks of as high value, someone else with slightly different needs, might see as not a value at all. Buying a series 2 great white, will always be the dominant part of the equation. The “value” of a camera body, factors in very little, unless it is at or close to the level of the 1DX…or unless you have or need 3 or 4 camera bodies in the arsenal. So if maximum reach with a given lens is all you value, then yes, bodies like the future 7D2 could be seen as representing "good value". Just remember that the "good value" here, is because you can use a single supertele lens with two different bodies to achieve two "effective" focal lengths. That's the only "value". You can achieve BETTER value by simply using two different teleconverters, because then you have 3 possible "effective" focal lengths, rather than two...all for under $1k over the cost of the lens alone...as opposed to ~ $2k+ for buying the top class APS-C body.

“That said...I'll also happily pay for a 5D III AS WELL. I can use both cameras...I do stuff at range, as well as stuff close up (such as macro, which can benefit from larger pixels), as well as landscapes and astrophotography. The only question is which one I'll buy first, not which one is better than the other.”

I’m happy that you can inform us all, as to what the “only question is”. You are overqualified there, a happy coincidence for you. It’s getting tiresome from here. Good day.

Sorry, I never knew, and never will know, what you "mean" in your head. All I know is what you say. You clearly said you thought APS-C was only for entry-level cameras (and thus inherently "cheap", as that is what entry-level cameras are...cheap. Simple and logical extrapolation there, base on what you SAID.)

As for the lenses, the 10-22 is not as good as the 16-35 L in the corners because it is bending light a lot more with cheaper glass. You can control that better, and if the 10-22 was an EF mount L series lens, it would be...better-grade optical glass, aspheric elements, fluorite elements, better engineering, etc. My point, which you missed, is that it is not the MOUNT that makes the lens bad, nor is the EF-S mount limited by physics. The lens is "bad" (relatively speaking, compared to an L-series wide angle zoom) only because Canon did not make it an actual L-series lens. They explicitly choose not to utilize high grade optics in EF-S lenses...because they are designed to be entry-level and mid-grade/prosumer lenses. Just because Canon did not put in the effort does not mean it is impossible for an EF-S lens to achieve the exact same quality level as an L-series lens does. The mount isn't the problem, and neither is physics. Canon doesn't want EF-S to attain the prestiege that L-series lenses to...that's reserved for L-series lenses, so they just plain and simply don't design the lens to attain superior optical quality.

I'd say the market segment is the only thing against EF-S lenses, and that is a matter of active choice on the part of Canon, not nature.

Oh yeah, it'll definitely sell. The 7D has been extremely popular, as it fills a fairly unique niche. The 7D II can only be better! How could it not sell?

Because the 6d is there.

In times of 7d & 5d2, the 7d mostly was the most expensive, i.e. "best" model in many stores, so people who wanted something "good" or "solid" were talked into buying that. Whith the 6d price on the decline, they'll probably buy ff quality & wifi/gps instead of 7d2 aps-c features a casual shooter doesn't need.

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I have both lens optical layout on my blog. I have used both lenses and the 10-22 is by no means "worthless crap".

That looks like an interesting article Zv, I will take a better look when I have more time. Here is arguably my best image with the 7D and EF-S 10-22, not full size as the file is too big. Viewed at 100% (original file) the limitations of the lens are apparent but I wouldn't have got this shot without the ultrawide.

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

There are a lot of people out there making a living off that worthless crap.

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.

Of course the quality of the elements used is different amongst the lenses but I would say that the 17-40 and 10-22 are very similar except that the elements would be smaller. However, there must be a reason why the 10-22 is more expensive than the 17-40.

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.

Of course the quality of the elements used is different amongst the lenses but I would say that the 17-40 and 10-22 are very similar except that the elements would be smaller. However, there must be a reason why the 10-22 is more expensive than the 17-40.

For all intents and purposes they cost the same. But supply and demand play a role: there are no other options for UW on a crop, where as on a FF you have what, 4 choices?

Carl, I think calling the 10-22 'worthless crap' is a bit much. It's not without it's limitations I freely admit, but it has got me some fantastic images I couldn't have got with any other lens*. Sharpness away from centre viewed close to 100% does suffer, but does that make it worthless crap? No it does not, and frankly, that's offensive.

jrista, from an old Canon lens brochure I have, it appears to me (and I stand to be corrected) that the EF-S 10-22 optical layout is not that dissimilar to the 17-40L (complete with SUD and aspherical elements), apart from smaller elements, presumably for the reduced image circle.

(*-by this, I mean ultra wide on crop)

I did not know it used an aspheric element, interesting. Ultralow Dispersion elements were good a decade ago, but Fluorite elements are far superior today, and considerably lower weight as well. That said, the 17-40 is by no means a 16-35. The 16-35 is definitely the optical superior to the 17-40. Not saying that the 17-40 is bad, but if the 10-22 has a similar design, it explains why it is so good for an EF-S lens. Even so, EF-S lenses are manufactured with the mass-production process, rather than the more hand-crafted process that higher-end L-series lenses get. I also do not believe it uses the higher grade optical glass that L-series lenses use, which would hurt IQ a bit as well.

There is no reason to think that the mount is putting any kind of physical limitations on the lens...materials quality, engineering quality, and whether or not there is a hand-crafted touch and meticulous verification process to ensure optimal performance are what determine the resolving power of a lens.

Of course the quality of the elements used is different amongst the lenses but I would say that the 17-40 and 10-22 are very similar except that the elements would be smaller. However, there must be a reason why the 10-22 is more expensive than the 17-40.

Sure, I believe all three lenses could stand to be updated. The 16-35 II is not a particularly great performer in the corners either (at least, not compared to the Nikon 14-24 anyway). I'm just trying to say, if the 10-22 or the 16-35 or any other Canon lens were redesigned and built today, any one of them, hell all of them, could perform much better than their current (and now aging) designs do. Physics is not explicitly limiting the optical performance of the 10-22, nor is the fact that it is a short-back design for a smaller mirror box, nor the fact that it is projecting a smaller image circle. None of those things intrinsically limit the resolving power of the lens...physics is not a "problem" for EF-S. If Canon so chose, they could make the EF-S 10-22 perform extremely well...it would just require more effort to build (especially if they were more hand-crafted like the great whites), and thus would also cost a lot more.

The only thing that is really against the 10-22, or any one of those three lenses, is market segment. Two cost ~$800, the other costs ~$1600. I believe the list price for the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is $2200. That extra $600 in cost gets you much better corner performance. It wouldn't matter if it was F mount, EF mount, EF-S mount, M42, or anything else. The mount does not impose a physical limitation on how good the optics in the lens body can be. That is the only point I am trying to make. The Fluorite element comment just has to do with the CA that exists in Canon's UWA lenses in the corners (which is really rather bad, even on the 16-35 II.)